MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300827008 · doi:10.46692/9781447331612.003

Weighing value: who decides what counts?

2017· other· en· W4300827008 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOperations Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Computer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This chapter is co-written by two people committed to adding the voice of community partners to the debate about the value of community–university research partnerships (CUPs). Our focus is on research partnerships and we are using the CUP acronym as shorthand. Within the UK there have been strong developments in supporting more sustained partnerships between universities and communities. The organisations we represent are at the forefront of these initiatives. Kim Aumann is a community practitioner with 12 years’ experience of CUP working in the UK and abroad, and was involved in setting up the UK Community Partner Network (UKCPN), and Sophie Duncan is Deputy Director of the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), which works to support universities to engage more effectively with the public, including providing international consultancy services and hosting the UKCPN. We believe that tapping into the experience and perspectives of community partners can help us improve the benefits of CUP working (Aumann, Duncan and Hart, 2014). Our work is internationally linked, while having a UK focus. To proactively explore how to encourage, support and facilitate effective use of CUPs to benefit society, between us we have conducted focused consultations and events with community partners (and academics); met and spoken with hundreds of community partners both in the UK and internationally; participated in international networks, including Community Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), the Living Knowledge Network, Global University Network for Innovation, Community Based Research Canada, UNESCO Chairs for Community Based Research, and Global Alliance for Community Engaged Research; worked with research funders; and facilitated national CUP projects. It is this direct experience and our reflections on practice that we draw on here. Our chapter is addressed to community partners and academics interested in CUP working. We are convinced that this way of working can produce more than individual partners can achieve on their own. However, we are conscious of the need to get better at articulating and evidencing the value and legacies of these ways of working if we are going to help protect the future of this form of knowledge creation and use. It is important that CUPs are an effective and appropriate use of public funding and that they do what they say they will do in a way that inspires confidence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.010

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOperations Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207